There's been a lot of discussion about how to communicate uncertainty about vaccines/transmission, guidance for vaccinated people, how to increase vaccine demand/address hesitancy, & what vaccines mean for the "end" of the pandemic.
Here are my thoughts. I call it "the well."
https://t.co/9ZmDc92dE1
Let\u2019s say (and we don\u2019t know this yet) the vaccines decrease asymptomatic transmission.
— Jeremy Faust MD MS (ER physician) (@jeremyfaust) January 17, 2021
Whether they achieve that by day 14, 28, or 42 is a matter of great importance and public safety.
Whether/when they \u2935\ufe0f it by 50%, 75%, or >90% is also life-and-death matter.
Too nuanced?
Most of the vaccines under development or authorized at least partially protect against infection & reduce replication (see URT and LRT protection columns)
https://t.co/g8NrCISY7E

https://t.co/qQjID1s9yz
\U0001f6a8A reality check\U0001f6a8
— Dr. Arinjay Banerjee, PhD (@sci_questions) January 18, 2021
If you are becoming complacent and if #COVID19 fatigue is setting in, remind yourself of these numbers. It is in our hands to curb the spread of #SARSCoV2.\U0001f637
> 95 MILLION cases
>2 MILLION deaths. pic.twitter.com/hfnKHaR48Y
-Avoid gatherings outside your household
-Stay home if sick
-Avoid crowded spaces
-Avoid enclosed spaces
-Ventilate if possible
-Masks
-Distancing
-Wash hands
-Disinfect high-touch surfaces
-Increase test/trace capacity
-Increase surveillance (genomic, wastewater, etc)
-Economic support to help people comply with the risk reduction measures above
-Create vaccine demand
-Counter misinformation
-Overstating or outright lying about vaccine efficacy
-Equating guidance intended to address a short-term problem as telling people to abandon hope
-Stating that education/nuance=telling people restrictions are eternal
https://t.co/L2ROwFqvZB
Since the conversation today is about whether vaccines are being undersold, let me hype you up once again with my thread about how all the current vaccines look great and you should get whichever one you can as soon as you can https://t.co/HBd4NQ41xl
— Ed MD (@notdred) January 18, 2021
More from Society

2/ Before this very publication, virologists were neither treated like superstars, nor were they considered icons or half-gods. In 2009, Drosten almost succeeded in installing the false premise virology could supersede holistic medical sciences as discussed in this thread.
3/ Drosten is a virologist. He neither has any background in epidemiology, nor has he ever worked in the civil service. He also doesn’t have a background in public health. Yet he and his colleagues affect our daily lives to the level of whom to meet up or how to flush the toilet.

4/ Before January 2020, Drosten and Corman were common virologists at Charité Berlin, whenever they were not involved in economic implications (https://t.co/UTDwG8U7Du). Other than that, they looked at coronaviruses in dromedary calves in the Middle East or Africa. 😍 #cute

5/ Finally in Jan 2020, the published paper laid the theoretical grounds for the current pandemic, the RT-qPCR mass testing-religion, for which he was awarded his second German Federal Cross of Merit (he received the first one in 2005 for developing the SARS-CoV PCR test).

1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.